Forum:The Magic 1000 rule
Okay something I'd like to bring up... The 1000 rule, Seas pressurizing to have this enforced and I must admit we should agree on some restrictions on allowing users to vote. We have; *1000 rule *I propose to add to this, a minimum experience of at least 1 month spent editing on the wikia I do note, there always was an restriction on the polls, but we never agreed on it. This topic is basically to help sort out and agree on something. Its best if we have a universal restriction. I also to discuss is "blogs don't count" in this, or to write it another way, "non-main article page" edits. I point out if you make 3000 blog enteries, you could potentially have more editing experience and contribute to the wikia more, but in a DIFFERENT way, i.e. your contributing to the community of the wikia rather then the wikia itself. As someone else helped explained what I failed to as well in another topic, if you make 270 edits and 30 are in blog entries do you still have no creditability to vote? Edit: And not allowing IP addresses to vote. sorry for leaving that one off. Discussion Well I guess you are right, I am here for only 17 days, I don't have many and am still not experienced, I might not help you at all or even be completely wrong and annoy you, but I still feel good when I try (at least) to help this wiki. I don't mind having to wait two more weeks to get the right to vote, a universal minimum is needed indeed, but I believe Panda, Roa or Jinbe mentioned that they want this to be a edit-by-all wiki. 16:45, May 26, 2011 (UTC) You forgot not allowing IP addresses to vote at all. Blogs don't count because they are not actually editing the wikia. They are being bloggers and not editors. SeaTerror 16:42, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :Added and corrected. Also, blogging still uses the same coding system per post, thats my note and why I mention it. One-Winged Hawk 16:47, May 26, 2011 (UTC) : :Leviathan created this very useful Template {Userstats} which allows you to see just what people edited. For example I currently have 1619 edits of which only 974 were on articles. Does that mean I'm not allowed to vote? How do forumposts count? 17:02, May 26, 2011 (UTC) In this forum are we gonna choose the restriction to the (every) polls? Well, 1000 edits it's kinda high in my opinion... usually we choose 300 edits, if you want to make it higher I'll say 500 then. For borderline case, well that will happen for whatever rule you choose, like 300 total edits (someone could have 298 edits), 300 "actual" edits (like you said someone could have 270 actual edits and 30 blog edits), or 1000 total edits (someone could have 990 edits). So you can't get rid of that problem, in this case you usually be mathematical strict, 299 edits -> you can't vote, 300 edits you can vote. Think about it: if you miss the requirements for 2 edits, how long will take for make 2 edits? And for the actual/total edits, there is no a big difference, setting the cutline to 300 actual edits is like setting the cutline to 500 total edits, more or less. For the difference between actual edits/total edits other then the template there is the special page . My edits are: }} 17:07, May 26, 2011 (UTC) I think before we decide on a number we have to solve the edit "value" issue. My opinion on all of them: Article: Our bread and butter and the very reason why we are here in the first place. Still, not every edit has the same value. Fixing the grammar of 2 words doesn't equal writing a whole summary. Article Talk: Equally important. Discussing issues is a absolute necessity. User Profile: A welcoming profile gives the wikia as a whole a positive image and might attract new editors. User Talk: Extremely important. The wikia is a community effort and interaction is a necessity. One Piece encyclopedia: See article. Files/templates: Tools the whole wikia can work with. Extremely important. Forum: In our case, the forum is the serious talkpage of the wikia. Round about 90% of the forum topics are important, and the arguments made there shape the wikia more than any article-edit ever could. Userblog, Blog comments: Extremely important, I'm not kidding. Many seem to forget that our blog scene is basically the "recruitment" camp of the wikia. Many of our most active users registered because of our lively blog community. It is true that we are no fansite, but we aren't wikipedia either. We are something in between, and I'm against calling edits made on blogs "useless" or "not important to the wikia". And only because someone edits mostly on blogs doesn't mean that he/she has no opinion on how the articles should look like, or what they should provide. As you can see, every part has its value and should be taken into consideration.-- 17:09, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :Thank you, my thoughts on blogs are the same. Once upon a time, there were no bloggers, now anything up to half our edits a day could be bloggers. As I said, if you write a table anywhere on the wikia its the same coding, no matter what if its on a blog or not. >_<' One-Winged Hawk 17:17, May 26, 2011 (UTC) @Panda: I think 1000 edits is a bit high. Anyway like I said in the other forum the fields that matter are are "Article", "O.P.E.", "File" and "Category". For example, in my case I can't vote because I have about 470 edits on articles (but like 1700 on files). Maybe just a though, setting 3 class of polls like free polls (no requirements), 2nd class (300-500 edits) and 3rd class (1000+ edits), based on the importance of the polls? I don't know if it's useful. @Jinbe: Unfortunately, you can't count the "weight" of your edits, only the total number (you can see it in the , the numbers mean how many character were added/deleted). Maybe, if you think about improving or expanding the content of the wiki, then it's like I said, but you think about participating in the community it's as you said. 17:23, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Blog edits are not real edits. If a person edits purely on blogs then yes the person cannot vote because they are not actually helping the wikia in any way. SeaTerror 17:28, May 26, 2011 (UTC) @Angel:I agree editing your profile you gain the same experience in coding like editing an article, but remember that most of the polls are about guidelines for the site, so, the question is do you need only "competence"? I have nothing against user blog-orientated, so I'm fine even with a "total edits" rule. 17:30, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Maybe you could start classifying users based on their activity and type of edits. -- 17:33, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :What do you mean, like a category "user allowed to vote"? If we set a rule, then that's automatically done without that, unless we will go for a case-by-case rule, but I don't see why. 17:39, May 26, 2011 (UTC) First of all, you can categorize users by their activity: mainly those who help the wiki and those who don't I am an example of an user that doesn't help the wiki much or even at all, but there are users that help the wiki like Pandawarrior, you can easily categorize them by their edits on pages, but if you agree that blog edits are also important, than I am a contributor as well and I could vote, also Leviathans idea is good, to actually categorize the votes. It would be better to discuss in some cases users at a time. That would be the best way to deal with their right to vote. -- 17:54, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :What I said was categorize the users, you can't categorize the edits unless you look in . But doing that is a LOT of work, I think it's much easier set the general rule, so now we need to discuss how "give value" to the different kind of edits, (all the same -> total edits, not all the same -> set a "filter") and how much edits are necessary to vote. 18:03, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :If what you mean value, than the only way is to give it something like each edit a 1 to 10 score, decide on one for each edit, but it would take even more time to actually calculate how much each user has his contribution, if it was in points, it would be hard to add each type of edit(times it's value) and add to the rest of the edit types times their value to give the user a score, if you can make a system or a template that can actually calculate automatically each users "contribution" than everybody is gonna be happy and we'll be done with this problem.-- 18:10, May 26, 2011 (UTC) There is a problem using those stats in expression, so a template can't be done. And manually calculating that is out of question. The options are: setting a general rule so everybody will automatically know if they can vote, or decide case-by-case if someone can vote, but for doing that you must have a rule in mind, so basically it's the first option. In conclusion we need to set a general guideline. 19:36, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Okay, i say allow users that are at least help this wikia grow..But a person can have like 300 edits on articles and like 1000 on files..So i am saying an user should have on Files or Articles the number 600 to participate..We all passed through that edit stage and the same thing exist for the new ones... 18:31, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Any required edit count solves the problem of those people who join just to vote on something like what kept happening with the Nakama translation vote. SeaTerror 19:39, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Hmmm... Might be just to say something like "you need 1,000 edits, 3,000 blogs..." whatever. I do question reject bloggers, a person who spends just 6 months here and makes 1,000 edits has more strength then a person who is here for 1 year and makes 10,000 edits on blogs? One-Winged Hawk 16:32, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :My problem is that we can't value article edits and blogposts. There are comments on blogs that are just trash, others on the other hand shape the wikia's image greatly. Similar case with article edits - how are (for example) edit-war edits beneficial to the wikia? This discussion could go on for ages. We just need to find a number that doesn't cripple our only tool for democracy. Your approach worked absolutely fine in the past, one month req + 300 edits. -- 16:42, May 27, 2011 (UTC) One month is not enough time. It should be at LEAST 3 months. Also 500 edits might be better if you're going to reject the 1000 idea. SeaTerror 02:09, May 28, 2011 (UTC) ::Why do we even need the edit count?It's ok if you tell something like "One Month/Three Months"...and that will solve everything about sockpuppeting and double voting.FOR EXAMPLE...we all know Marcus Junior never edited but voted a couple of times,but we are all aware of him as an old user around.And IF this motion is passed,will all the old polls need to be revoted?-- :::On the old polls, no, because they were "correct" at the time of voting. However, you can challenge any of the votes for a revote at any point. One-Winged Hawk 10:57, May 28, 2011 (UTC) The real names one needs to be revoted on at the very least. SeaTerror 02:30, May 28, 2011 (UTC) So, what should the procedure be for on-going votes i.e. the Top 10 list forum? 10:47, May 28, 2011 (UTC) There is no need to revote anything. If really needed (which I would be not fond of) we can still filter the votes after we came to a decision here. -- 10:51, May 28, 2011 (UTC) So far I have some suggested polls, I'll do a month month restriction with 300, but this is the last time that will be in... After this it will become offical so I have no need to write up that: Should there be a restriction on when you have the right to vote? #Yes #No #Neutral Should there be a time restriction, if so what length? #No. #2 weeks #1 Month #3 Months #6 months should there be a post restriction, if so what number? #No #100 #300 #500 #1000 Should blogs count at all in the right to post? #No. #Yes, normal count rule #Yes, but you will never to make x2 amount of entries #Yes, but you will need to make x4 times Edit as you please. I left IP adresses off because I think we all agree against IP adress, unless someone wants to add it for "peace of mind" sake. One-Winged Hawk 10:57, May 28, 2011 (UTC) I beg everyone who participates, please think CAREFULLY what each decision would actually mean for us. If this goes wrong we cripple our only tool to solve issues in a democratic way. Also, remember that if we use a high number it will likely encourage "edits for the sake of reaching the voting barrier" - which can't be of good quality. -- 11:05, May 28, 2011 (UTC) :Wait! Vote hasn't started yet!I'm trying to sort out what questions we're going to have first! Lol. Notice its not dated yet. XD One-Winged Hawk 11:18, May 28, 2011 (UTC) :Oh okay^^ But this looks fine to me. 11:23, May 28, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah I'll prob. set it up running tomorrow, I'm just giving everyone a chance to have a say on what w're voting on. I did this with the last poll and figured I'd do it with this poll. sorry about that. One-Winged Hawk 11:37, May 28, 2011 (UTC) :A few things: about the old polls, there is no need to check anything, because currently there is no general restriction, so the restrictions were decided case by case before the vote phase. About this currently restriction (1 month, 300 edits), I agree with it, but technically shouldn't this poll "open" to everyone? Because we are deciding the restrictions by applying the restrictions? Just saying... last, can someone explain to me the blog question? Also I want to point that there are blog and blog comments, so we can count them together or not. 12:13, May 28, 2011 (UTC) I see no reason why you are against revoting. If you filter out those votes that wouldn't count then that means the entire vote would have changed. SeaTerror 16:29, May 28, 2011 (UTC) Because different rules applied for past votes. 16:38, May 28, 2011 (UTC) @Seaterror I don't say we should filter anything, I just don't see the point in re-voting. I mean, the votes are already made - the only question is if they can stand up to the new rules. People didn't change their mind, their "vote" just might just lost validity. But anyway, lets see where this leads to and then we can think about revoting/filtering old votes. Or we just let it be.-- 16:44, May 28, 2011 (UTC) @Seaterror: I'm not "against", I simply say there is nothing wrong with them, because if we wanted to set restrictions at that time, then we could have done it (and we did it sometimes), so if we didn't then we implicitly agreed to let everybody vote. If with time there will troubles with the things we decide back then, then we will open a form like these "revamp" forums. Think about it: when a new law is approved, is not retroactive, if I'm not mistaken only to condemn Cicero a retroactive-law was made... But aside from that, I don't get what "Yes, but you will never to make x2 amount of entries" means... someone can explain it to me? 19:38, May 28, 2011 (UTC) I can't speak for Angel, but I think it means that a blog edit only counts half or a quarter of a "real edit" (whatever that is...). Lets say one has 4000 edits from blogs. If you vote for x2 the editor would have 2000 "real edits". If you vote for x4, said editor would have only 1000 "real edits".-- 22:20, May 28, 2011 (UTC) :It means to really count, a blogger will have to make twice as many edits to the wikia then a regular editor. But your explaination is a different way of explaining that and quite honestly explains it BETTER then I could ever. :Also seriously, we will not have to re-vote on the old stuff. Their fine as under the old set of rules, this will simply create the "standard" of rules in place for voting because until now its been whatever the person who did a vote cared to do. One-Winged Hawk 10:02, May 29, 2011 (UTC) There are plenty we have to revote on again eventually. Like the macron one and the real names one. SeaTerror 17:20, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :Different rules applied for past votes. There is no need to revote.-- 17:42, May 29, 2011 (UTC) So... Are we all good to go on this poll? One-Winged Hawk 15:02, May 30, 2011 (UTC) There is always a need to revote. Especially on ones where people used speculation to say something is true. SeaTerror 15:38, May 30, 2011 (UTC) @Seaterror That has nothing to do with the new "official" voting restriction tho. You can challenge any vote without a particular reason when enough time has passed. Nothing is set in stone, the community decides, and the communities shape and opinion changes over time. Thats the beauty of the wikia's system. @Angel Actually I believe that the x2 and x4 options are disgusting, to say the least. Rating the value of editors (and their edits) is completely unnecessary and causes only bad blood in the community. But whatever, I guess I have to accept that there are people that look down on certain areas of the wikia and their editors. I just hope they are the minority. I know that was not the point of your question, but I just had to say that before we go on. -- 17:18, May 30, 2011 (UTC) We should do a vote to see how long before a vote should be rechallenged. I say 6 months might be good. Because, Jinbe, they are not real editors if the person is just blogging. A real edit is done on an article page, article talk page, person's talk page, or edits to templates and images. SeaTerror 21:18, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :I never thought about that... I think that "revote" is a seperate issue though. I'll have to start a new topic on that later. One-Winged Hawk 10:17, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Polls Okay, this may possibly be the last time I says this; one month of editing, 300 edits at least before you vote. Poll will close on the 14th of June, I'm giving time on this one. Without further ado, begin voting! One-Winged Hawk 10:17, May 31, 2011 (UTC) - Should there be a restriction on when you have the right to vote? *'Yes' #One-Winged Hawk 10:17, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # //sure! # 10:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 12:09, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 13:21, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 13:52, May 31, 2011 (UTC) absolutely.. #SeaTerror 15:59, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 17:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) *'No' *'Neutral' # - Should there be a time restriction, if so what length? *'No.' # *'2 weeks' *'1 Month' #One-Winged Hawk 10:17, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # //not more than this:) # 13:21, May 31, 2011 (UTC)//no need for more, it's just voting, not becoming an admin or so:) *'3 months' #SeaTerror 15:59, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Somehow you forgot this one. # 12:09, May 31, 2011 (UTC) (only compromise I'm willing to make if people really think the current rule isn't enough) # 16:10, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 10:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 17:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) *'6 months' - Should there be a post restriction, if so what number? *'No' # //some one explain this to me:) *'100' *'300' #One-Winged Hawk 10:17, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 10:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 12:09, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 13:21, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 17:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # *'500' # 13:52, May 31, 2011 (UTC) #SeaTerror 15:59, May 31, 2011 (UTC) *'1000' - Should blogs count at all in the right to post? *'No.' #SeaTerror 15:59, May 31, 2011 (UTC) No they are not real edits and you're all wrong to think they are real edits. *'Yes, normal count rule' #One-Winged Hawk 10:17, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # //of course! # 10:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 12:09, May 31, 2011 (UTC) # 13:21, May 31, 2011 (UTC) //they're edits after all, they're not unvaluable or valuable:) # 13:52, May 31, 2011 (UTC) *'Yes, but you will need to make x2 amount of entries' # *'Yes, but you will need to make x4 amount of entries' Discussion II A few questions/comments: # I corrected the last options. # What happens if, about the post restrictions, there are e.g. 2 votes for each option 100, 300, 500, and 1000, and 3 votes for "no"? # What about blog comments? sff9 (talk) 12:15, May 31, 2011 (UTC) 2. Guess like with any other poll, extending time limit and / or leaving messages on talkpages (for more participation) Probably one of the restriction options wins, since the majority would be for a restriction, no matter what amount. 3. I guess that covers both types. 12:30, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Just a note, but for the blog posts "Yes, but you will need to make x2 amount of entries" option and the other one (x4), you need to manually do that count, so everyone who is in the borderline needs to do that count to see if he has the requirements for voting, or someone else has to do it for him. 14:07, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Blog edits are not actual edits so I can't believe people are voting to allow it. SeaTerror 16:00, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Wait somebody originally moved 3 month option out of the poll? I must have added it back without knowing. SeaTerror 16:10, May 31, 2011 (UTC) :It was your doing, actually, check the diff. Don't know what happened. :sff9 (talk) 16:19, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Nevermind. I screwed up somehow. I guess I didn't see the 3 month option. SeaTerror 16:20, May 31, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, you must have inadvertantly deleted it, then since you couldn't find it you added it at the end, thus changing the votes of Panda, Jinbe and LPK. Whatever, that's fixed now (I removed the extra Panda sig Panda removed it in the meantime actually). sff9 (talk) 16:27, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Techically I had just woken up. Then I had it in preview mode and must have thought I put an extra 3 months in between the votes. I swear I saw everybody under 1 month earlier. SeaTerror 16:31, May 31, 2011 (UTC) :Don't worry about that! Why would you want to change the votes that were for the option you wanted anyway! sff9 (talk) 16:36, May 31, 2011 (UTC) :"I just woke up" worst time to edit, take it from an expert in that field. Lol. >:-D One-Winged Hawk 18:43, June 1, 2011 (UTC) theres one week left on this poll, everyone seems to have made up their mind though. One-Winged Hawk 17:26, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :Poll closes tomorrow. One-Winged Hawk 14:36, June 13, 2011 (UTC) I still find it completely unfair that a person who just edits on blogs can actually vote on something. That is not improving the wikia. Improving the wikia would be editing an article, template, picture, article talk pages, and user talk pages. SeaTerror 19:23, July 4, 2011 (UTC) : Dude...this is no way to handle stuff//seriously(though I've got no solution with me!)